The most acute division on the right — the one that will give Mitt Romney the most trouble — is not between moderates and hard-core right-wingers, between electability-minded pragmatists and ideologues, or between the Tea Party and the Republican establishment. It is between those Republicans who disagree with Barack Obama, believing his policies to be mistaken, and those who hate Barack Obama, believing him to be wicked. Mitt Romney is the candidate of the former, but is regarded with suspicion, or worse, by the latter. The former group of Republicans would be happy merely to win the presidential election, but the latter are after something more: a national repudiation of President Obama, of his governmental overreach, and of managerial progressivism mainly as practiced by Democrats but also as practiced by Republicans.

It is unlikely that those seeking a national act of electoral penance for having elected Barack Obama are going to get what they are after. For one thing, the number of Americans who believe President Obama to be merely incompetent is far greater than the number of Americans who believe him to be, not to put too fine a point on it, evil. For another, that larger group of voters is, for once, probably right.

Presidents are cultural lightning rods, the last two more so than many others. This has some weird effects. George W. Bush was hated and loathed by the Democratic base, which is aggressively anti-religious and seeks to impose a liberal cultural homogeneity on the nation (the totems of which are gay marriage, abortion on demand, and the environmental liturgy) to such an extent that even unremarkable initiatives sent them into a panic when they bore the imprimatur of W. President Bush’s office of faith-based initiatives, for example, represented the sort of thing that could easily have been signed into law by Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton. Far from representing the camel’s nose of Christian theocracy poking under the tent of the First Amendment, the office’s oversight council today includes the president of Seedco, the founder of Asian Indian Women of America, Rabbi David N. Saperstein, the president of Catholic Charities, the head of Big Brothers Big Sisters America, and the director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies — an all-American mix, with no Torquemada or Chillingsworth to be found. But because the initiative touches on religious organizations and was brought into being by President Bush, it was greeted in many quarters as though it were a revival of the Salem witch trials. Faith-based initiatives may be a good idea or a bad idea, but the program is not what its most hysterical critics thought it was.

President Obama, for his part, has signed some truly awful pieces of legislation into law: the stimulus package, Cash for Clunkers, and, most notably, Obamacare. Bad as these are, the reaction among some conservatives has been overblown, and I write that as the author of a book that contains the sentence, “Of course Obamacare is socialism.” The president has been described as a budding Hitler, a bush-league Stalin, a saboteur, a revolutionary, etc. But as lamentable as President Obama’s agenda has been, there is not much that is especially remarkable about it. President Obama is not a revolutionary Bolshevik; he is a conventional liberal of a very familiar kind. Obamacare is precisely the same sort of program that a Pres. Al Gore or a Pres. John Kerry might have signed into law. The most remarkable thing about President Obama is that, unlike even the masterly Bill Clinton, he managed to get a big part of the Democrats’ health-care agenda enacted as law. He did this with a major assist from his predecessor, who left him with a much more liberal Congress than might otherwise have been elected.

A different Democrat, or a Republican, would have put together a different kind of stimulus package, and probably (probably) a smaller one, but the wrongheaded thinking behind it is hardly revolutionary. Cash for Clunkers and Solyndra are the most characteristic of President Obama’s initiatives, marked as they are by fanciful thinking, cronyism, and futility. But President Obama presses the Right’s buttons in more or less the same way President Bush pushed the Left’s, and that is about something other than (or in addition to) his policy choices. It is about who he is. At this point, Democrats will say, in that smug way of theirs: “And who he is is black, and that’s what this is all about.” I am not such a Pollyanna (or so deaf) as to believe that the tone of the president’s skin is a complete non-issue among his most bitter critics, but it is a much smaller issue than Democrats such as Eric Holder would have you believe.

Mitt Romney’s critique of President Obama is not that of Newt Gingrich, who has borrowed Dinesh D’Souza’s formulation that Obama’s views are grounded in the “Kenyan anti-colonialism” of his estranged father. Nor is it of the “Hitler Believed in Government-Run Health Care, Too” variety one hears among the lesser luminaries of talk radio. Romney’s critique is that Obama is a manager in way over his head, that he does not know what he is doing, and that his attempts to solve problems he does not understand are making things worse. This seems to me the more credible explanation. But if you are the sort of person who believes that President Obama is trying to destroy America, then Romney’s rhetoric is bound to prove unsatisfying, and you will go seeking sterner stuff — from Gingrich, from the cannier Rick Santorum, from also-rans such as Michele Bachmann or future also-rans such as Rick Perry, or from Ron Paul, if that’s your thing. Among my correspondents, there are many who are very plain about the fact that they would rather lose with Gingrich or Santorum than win with Romney.

Conservatives who suspect that Romney isn’t really in his heart of hearts one of us probably are correct. He doesn’t smell like a right-winger. But, given the cultural aspects of the presidency mentioned above, there may be some advantages to electing Mr. Plain Vanilla, assuming that he can get himself elected. It is very likely that whoever the next president is, he will be working with a Republican Senate and a Republican House, albeit a Republican House that may have a few fewer Republicans than today’s. If Paul Ryan, John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell wish to send the White House a balanced-budget deal, a President Romney might have an easier time negotiating it than would a lightning-rod President Gingrich or President Santorum, because it will feel more like a piece of prudent fiscal legislation than like a partisan assault on all that Democrats hold sacred and dear. The package could be precisely the same, but the politics change considerably depending on who is signing the bill into law. And, inconvenient as that fact is, there are going to be Democrats around in 2013, probably a lot of them. If you think that we can balance the budget and reform entitlements while ignoring them, you are kidding yourself.

This will be especially important when it comes to repealing Obamacare, the first step of which is: Do not announce that you are repealing Obamacare. The smart way to repeal Obamacare is to revisit the legislation and to amend it in ways that remove the worst of its statist overreach and replace it with the best available free-market alternatives. The Wyden-Ryan approach is one possible model for amending Obamacare, but it is not the only one, and it is not sufficient by itself. In any case, it will be more effective to amend the legislation in such a way that it is effectively repealed and replaced than to have an emotionally satisfying but probably unwinnable fight over repeal per se. The Supreme Court may give Republicans an assist on this by ruling against the mandate, which, regardless of any additional rulings about the remainder of the legislation, would render the entire package economically unworkable and necessitate reopening the case. This, too, probably will be easier to accomplish with a bloodless manager such as Romney at the helm than an ideological flamethrower.

— Kevin D. Williamson is a deputy managing editor of National Review.

Odysseus

01-20-2012, 03:16 PM

Continued:

In the next four years, Republicans should pass a major fiscal-consolidation package that balances the budget, and replace Obamacare in the course of enacting a broader entitlement-reform program. That’s a lot of work. That is the necessary domestic agenda. It requires winning, first of all, but it also requires getting some congressional Democrats on board and winning some support from Democrats and independents in the electorate. That will not feel good, but it is necessary.

For conservatives, it is a question of whether we choose a president based on who he is or based on what he can do. Those conservatives who believe that the way forward is to nominate the anti-Obama hold that Americans are so fed up with the president that they are ready to elevate a hardcore ideologue to the presidency. Andy McCarthy is representative of them when he writes that Gingrich is a “plausible candidate this time around, when in many cycles he would not be, because the main issue is Obama’s radicalism — the president has people frightened enough that what would appear to be insurmountable baggage in some elections could be cancelled out this time around.” But who are these frightened Americans for whom “the main issue” in 2012 is going to be Obama’s so-called radicalism? (And what do we call the 35 percent of Americans who support a Canadian-style single-payer health-care system? Insurgents?) Are we so sure of their support? In what states do they live, and why do they fail to show up in the polling data, which consistently find that voters’ main concerns are the economy, jobs, and related issues?

As the original campaign consultant put it, the critical thing in every battle is to know your enemy, to know yourself, and to know the terrain. That means, among other things, refusing to tell yourself fairy tales about how everybody is really on your side and just waiting to discover the fact.

— Kevin D. Williamson is a deputy managing editor of National Review.

DumbAss Tanker

01-20-2012, 03:17 PM

He could be evil, and still not be very good at it.

Bailey

01-20-2012, 03:21 PM

A little from column A and a little from column B.

Janice

01-20-2012, 03:38 PM

I was going to say a lot from the first and a little from the second. But on second thought Id say a lot from both columns.

Arroyo_Doble

01-20-2012, 04:36 PM

That sounded desperate.

Hawkgirl

01-20-2012, 06:13 PM

I'd say more incompetent than evil. Remember, he was schooled in a liberal college by liberal professors...the same Columbia University that let Immadinnerjacket speak on campus. His lack of leadership experience makes him incompetent at best...but I would not go as far as evil...unless he's a closet jihadist.

Bailey

01-20-2012, 06:16 PM

That sounded desperate.

To an obama supporter I bet it did.

Rockntractor

01-20-2012, 06:30 PM

I'd say more incompetent than evil. Remember, he was schooled in a liberal college by liberal professors...the same Columbia University that let Immadinnerjacket speak on campus. His lack of leadership experience makes him incompetent at best...but I would not go as far as evil...unless he's a closet jihadist.

We have never seen any records on any of his schooling.

Arroyo_Doble

01-20-2012, 06:31 PM

To an obama supporter I bet it did.

Newt is damaging Romney. Guys like the one writing the piece in the OP thought this thing was over and all of a sudden .... *poof* .... South Carolina is starting to look like it is blowing up in their faces and the opportunity to dismantle the social safety net, not to mention maintaining a tax policy favorable to the wealthy, is slipping away.

That Romney PAC shouldn't have been so ugly in Iowa.

wwworkingguy

01-20-2012, 07:40 PM

I'd say more incompetent than evil. Remember, he was schooled in a liberal college by liberal professors...the same Columbia University that let Immadinnerjacket speak on campus. His lack of leadership experience makes him incompetent at best...but I would not go as far as evil...unless he's a closet jihadist.

I agree ..... he's stupid as in useful idiot.

Rockntractor

01-20-2012, 07:47 PM

Let him get elected for one more term and we will come to know him as evil, there will be no question.

Odysseus

01-20-2012, 10:51 PM

Newt is damaging Romney. Guys like the one writing the piece in the OP thought this thing was over and all of a sudden .... *poof* .... South Carolina is starting to look like it is blowing up in their faces and the opportunity to dismantle the social safety net, not to mention maintaining a tax policy favorable to the wealthy, is slipping away.

That Romney PAC shouldn't have been so ugly in Iowa.

Either Newt or Romney would be an improvement on Obama. At this point, I just want to mitigate the damage done to our own side by our own side. Friendly fire isn't.

Kay

01-21-2012, 12:06 AM

Remember, he was schooled in a liberal college by liberal professors
...but I would not go as far as evil...unless he's a closet jihadist.

I remember too that he was schooled first at an early age in a madrasah,
back in one of his other birth countries. So I don't rule out his being a
closet jihadist trying to destroy America.

I say he's 1 part evil to 2 parts incompetent.

Articulate_Ape

01-21-2012, 12:40 AM

Incompetent? Yes. Why would he not be given his career history? Evil? I don't think so. True evil needs a certain level of competence to be realized. Obama suffers from a much more common, yet nearly as destructive human flaw called: being wrong.

Wrong when left to it's own devices becomes evil. We aren't there yet, and let us hope we never get there.

DumbAss Tanker

01-21-2012, 11:34 AM

Newt is damaging Romney. Guys like the one writing the piece in the OP thought this thing was over and all of a sudden .... *poof* .... South Carolina is starting to look like it is blowing up in their faces and the opportunity to dismantle the social safety net, not to mention maintaining a tax policy favorable to the wealthy, is slipping away.

That Romney PAC shouldn't have been so ugly in Iowa.

If you think the Dems are ever going to seriously try to pass an tax scheme that would seriously harm their own key donors, you're nuts. Even if they had the near-complete upper hand such as they enjoyed from 2008-2010, they would simply posture and demagogue, and eventually 'Reluctantly acquiesce' to 'Holdout vicious Republican Senators' to get a system that screws small businesses and protects the media money people, financial institutions, and a large swath of Wall Street.

AmPat

01-21-2012, 12:04 PM

Newt is damaging Romney. Guys like the one writing the piece in the OP thought this thing was over and all of a sudden .... *poof* .... South Carolina is starting to look like it is blowing up in their faces and the opportunity to dismantle the social safety net, not to mention maintaining a tax policy favorable to the wealthy, is slipping away.

That Romney PAC shouldn't have been so ugly in Iowa.
Please enlighten us as to how a "PROGRESSIVE income tax is "favorable to the wealthy." While at it, explain what "wealthy" is. Also, please include the taxes paid by the "favored wealthy" versus the unfavored poor.

This ought to be good.:popcorn:

Odysseus

01-21-2012, 01:46 PM

Please enlighten us as to how a "PROGRESSIVE income tax is "favorable to the wealthy." While at it, explain what "wealthy" is. Also, please include the taxes paid by the "favored wealthy" versus the unfavored poor.

This ought to be good.:popcorn:

To the left, any tax policy that doesn't impoverish the wealthy favors them.

However, if Arroyo is willing to enlighten us as to his ideal tax system, I'd be willing to listen.

Janice

01-21-2012, 01:55 PM

0bama is evil in this sense:

Bush did things that actually harmed the economy and the country ... in the long run. But I dont think that was his intention. In a sense .. he's an idiot. But really... hes just a "moderate" repuke. Just another milktoast moderate republican. Bush 1 his father was even more so.

0bama on the other hand is doing everything in his power to bring this economy and this country crashing down ... all while trying to give the appearance that he is not doing that at all. In fact he claims to be doing the opposite. And of course the more time goes on... the more evident that words do not match facts. But thats the objective isnt it? Naturally your going to want to lie if bringing down this nation is your true objective. Otherwise you may not be able to complete the task.

In this sense Bush may have been an idiot, but 0bama? This is evil folks. Lucky for us, his incompetence is giving him a run for the money. So - on that note ...

In 2012, which do you think 0bama will do more frequently?

Golf
Fund-raise
Lie about his record

Rockntractor

01-21-2012, 01:57 PM

He is plain and simple evil and time will prove it.

Rockntractor

01-21-2012, 01:59 PM

To the left, any tax policy that doesn't impoverish the wealthy favors them.

However, if Arroyo is willing to enlighten us as to his ideal tax system, I'd be willing to listen.

He will fall in the ideal category of that system if he choose to reveal it.

NJCardFan

01-21-2012, 02:07 PM

I agree ..... he's stupid as in useful idiot.

Obama is a real Manchurian Candidate.

NJCardFan

01-21-2012, 02:10 PM

0bama is evil in this sense:

Bush did things that actually harmed the economy and the country ... in the long run. But I dont think that was his intention. In a sense .. he's an idiot. But really... hes just a "moderate" repuke. Just another milktoast moderate republican. Bush 1 his father was even more so.

0bama on the other hand is doing everything in his power to bring this economy and this country crashing down ... all while trying to give the appearance that he is not doing that at all. In fact he claims to be doing the opposite. And of course the more time goes on... the more evident that words do not match facts. But thats the objective isnt it? Naturally your going to want to lie if bringing down this nation is your true objective. Otherwise you may not be able to complete the task.

In this sense Bush may have been an idiot, but 0bama? This is evil folks. Lucky for us, his incompetence is giving him a run for the money. So - on that note ...

In 2012, which do you think 0bama will do more frequently?

Golf
Fund-raise
Lie about his record

D) All of the above.

Odysseus

01-21-2012, 02:21 PM

0bama is evil in this sense:

Bush did things that actually harmed the economy and the country ... in the long run. But I dont think that was his intention. In a sense .. he's an idiot. But really... hes just a "moderate" repuke. Just another milktoast moderate republican. Bush 1 his father was even more so.

0bama on the other hand is doing everything in his power to bring this economy and this country crashing down ... all while trying to give the appearance that he is not doing that at all. In fact he claims to be doing the opposite. And of course the more time goes on... the more evident that words do not match facts. But thats the objective isnt it? Naturally your going to want to lie if bringing down this nation is your true objective. Otherwise you may not be able to complete the task.

In this sense Bush may have been an idiot, but 0bama? This is evil folks. Lucky for us, his incompetence is giving him a run for the money. So - on that note ...
It's hard to argue. At some point, malice and incompetence truly become indistinguishable. But I think that a lot of what we consider evil on Obama's part is simply a skewed worldview and ignorance. His attack on the Keystone pipeline is the most obvious. I think that he genuinely thinks that fossil fuels are bad for the planet, and doesn't know enough about the consequences of his actions to recognize that he's just put another nail into the coffin that he's building for the US economy. His supporters are affluent envirokooks who quote the same drivel that he gets daily from the approved news sources, or they are scammers who are using schemes like Solyndra to bilk the public. If these are the sources of his data, then he doesn't understand the real consequences. It also explains why he gets so testy when he is confronted with facts that contradict him.

Remember, this is a guy who has never done anything. Every job that he's ever had has only required that he show up, pretend to care and then vote or make a speech. He's never done any research on his own (notice the absence of staff work on his resume, most politicians do at least some time working for someone else in power), but simply regurgitated the litanies of leftist platitudes that his professors filled him with. His books were ghostwritten, his speeches as well, and without the teleprompter, he can't even hold a conversation. I also think that one of the reasons that his academic records are so closely guarded is because he was a poor student, but kept his places in elite institutions through affirmative action, something that his campaign cannot address without bringing the wrong kind of attention to his race. If the people who voted for him because he was black suddenly turn around and say, you know, I voted for racial equality once, so I don't have anything to prove this time around, he's finished. This is what happened to Dinkins in 1993 when Clinton tried to campaign for him by playing the race card. The people who had voted for him were pissed off that they were being told that if they didn't do it again, they were racists, and it put the unspoken taboo front and center. Giuliani won, partly because a lot of liberal New Yorkers got their backs up at being called bigots by a guy whose home town was famous for having been integrated at gunpoint.

In 2012, which do you think 0bama will do more frequently?

Golf
Fund-raise
Lie about his record
They aren't mutually exclusive, but I suspect that he will play less golf if it interferes with his fund-raising and campaigning. OTOH, he may combine the two. Lying about his record is probably going to be the most frequent, simply because he will do that while fund-raising, playing golf, campaigning, eating, walking, sleeping and breathing. He can't help himself.

He will fall in the ideal category of that system if he choose to reveal it.

Of course, but what system will it be? After all, whenever you try to nail a liberal down on specifics, like what percentage of somebody's income they should get to keep, they immediately freak out an try to change the subject.

Meanwhile, government at all levels now spends 40% of GDP. The federal government spends about 23% of GDP. That means that 40% of every dollar earned in America by productive, private sector activity, is confiscated and spent by the permanent bureaucracies at the federal, state and local level. That's another aspect of this that I would like to see libs answer: What percentage of the economy ought to be run by government?

Tecate

01-22-2012, 12:13 AM

He's not incompetent or evil...

He's a globalist puppet who runs nothing and is nothing, simply carrying out orders from his off-shore banker masters. He isn't attempting to "fix" anything, he's deliberately trying to wreck everything by design because that's what he was ordered to do by the very same masters who own the field of clowns in the Republican race.

Arroyo_Doble

01-22-2012, 12:17 AM

To the left, any tax policy that doesn't impoverish the wealthy favors them.

However, if Arroyo is willing to enlighten us as to his ideal tax system, I'd be willing to listen.

I support a flat tax.

SarasotaRepub

01-22-2012, 12:26 AM

The President is a Chicago Street Thug Politician. An empty suit.

Janice

01-22-2012, 01:15 AM

http://i.imgur.com/OU1yt.jpg

txradioguy

01-22-2012, 02:43 PM

Let him get elected for one more term and we will come to know him as evil, there will be no question.

This country can't afford one more term...not and come out the other side of it a country you or I would recognize.

Tipsycatlover

01-22-2012, 02:53 PM

obama's opposition to Keystone comes from a committment only to himself. He was going to lose thousands of campaign workers and footsoldiers. He needs the envirokooks to hit the bricks for him. He doesn't need people who work for a living. Listen to him, just listenl When he refused to issue drilling permits after the gulf spill he told people not to worry about income. They woudl have unemployment benefits. After he vetoed Keystone he made the absurd claim that nonworking people contribute more to the economy that working people.

He is evil. Truly truly evil. He is worse than the usual liberal who is evil under the impression that evil is working toward the ultimate good. He is evil to serve only himself.

Odysseus

01-22-2012, 03:06 PM

Newt is damaging Romney. Guys like the one writing the piece in the OP thought this thing was over and all of a sudden .... *poof* .... South Carolina is starting to look like it is blowing up in their faces and the opportunity to dismantle the social safety net, not to mention maintaining a tax policy favorable to the wealthy, is slipping away.

That Romney PAC shouldn't have been so ugly in Iowa.

I support a flat tax.

Uh, you do realize that a flat tax is one rate for all incomes, right? That it doesn't grow progressively as income increases? Not that I disagree with a flat tax, but your position is in conflict with your professed desire for a tax policy that doesn't favor the wealthy. :confused:

AmPat

01-22-2012, 05:06 PM

Uh, you do realize that a flat tax is one rate for all incomes, right? That it doesn't grow progressively as income increases? Not that I disagree with a flat tax, but your position is in conflict with your professed desire for a tax policy that doesn't favor the wealthy. :confused:

Stop, his head hurrts from the revelation of facts. Facts cause migraines to liberals.

Arroyo_Doble

01-22-2012, 08:41 PM

Uh, you do realize that a flat tax is one rate for all incomes, right? That it doesn't grow progressively as income increases? Not that I disagree with a flat tax, but your position is in conflict with your professed desire for a tax policy that doesn't favor the wealthy. :confused:

Romney stated that his effective tax rate is 15%. Mine is higher. How about you?

AmPat

01-22-2012, 08:46 PM

Romney stated that his effective tax rate is 15%. Mine is higher. How about you?

Romney's tax rate is higher than that. He paid an additional 15% on top of his earned income on his capital gains. You do understand that don't you?

Rockntractor

01-22-2012, 09:10 PM

Romney's tax rate is higher than that. He paid an additional 15% on top of his earned income on his capital gains. You do understand that don't you?
Do you ever wonder why we have to continue explaining the obvious to these people?

Retread

01-22-2012, 10:58 PM

Do you ever wonder why we have to continue explaining the obvious to these people?

Not really - that's the one concept that is totally unacceptable to them. Remember - they are the ones who do the same thing over and over expecting it to turn out different.....

Arroyo_Doble

01-22-2012, 10:59 PM

Romney's tax rate is higher than that. He paid an additional 15% on top of his earned income on his capital gains. You do understand that don't you?

I understand the spin, yes.

fettpett

01-23-2012, 01:46 AM

I understand the spin, yes.

he already was taxed on the investment money when it was income. He then paid an additional 15% on it when he got it back as capital gains.

txradioguy

01-23-2012, 08:48 AM

Romney stated that his effective tax rate is 15%. Mine is higher. How about you?

And you're an idiot. His 15% tax rate is the standard capital gains tax rate that EVERYONE pays.

His income tax rate is much higher.

But hey kudos to you for believing hook line and sinker the false info that the media puts out without so much as a shred of thought on your own.

You're the perfect example of garbage in...garbage out.

txradioguy

01-23-2012, 08:49 AM

I understand the spin, yes.

The spin you moron...is what you bought...what the MSM counted on you being one of the unthinking sheep and believing.

Arroyo_Doble

01-23-2012, 10:06 AM

he already was taxed on the investment money when it was income. He then paid an additional 15% on it when he got it back as capital gains.

That makes no sense. Either it is income or it isn't. Calling it capital gains doesn't change whether or not you gained income.

Taxing income should be the same whether it is made through risk or labor.

AmPat

01-23-2012, 10:29 AM

That makes no sense. Either it is income or it isn't. Calling it capital gains doesn't change whether or not you gained income.

Taxing income should be the same whether it is made through risk or labor.

His income is what he invested. That income was ALREADY TAXED. Get it? He then had the ALREADY TAXED income taxed AGAIN on his gains.

(Caps used to assist idiot liberal's comprehension handiCAPS)

Janice

01-23-2012, 10:29 AM

he already was taxed on the investment money when it was income. He then paid an additional 15% on it when he got it back as capital gains.

Yes. His real tax rate when its all added together is closer to 50% any day of the week.

This is almost a déjà vu moment here. As much as I detested some of the stuff Bush did, I found myself defending him online against attacks/ lies/ distortions from the left because he would not defend himself. Talk about stupid! But its not just that. Because it helps advance lies. Whats the saying? "The only thing necessary for evil to win, is for good men to do nothing."

And now Romney is going down the same path. It would be so easy for him to explain this. Of course he knows what we know and what the elite media knows ... all this is common knowledge to any thinking person with half a brain. And yet ... they persist on appealing to the liberal sheeple who just cant look past their base desires (class envy in this case) just because ... it works! Day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, decade after decade the drumbeat goes on. And people in a clear position to set the record straight choose instead to remain silent. This imho is a very serious character flaw.

Does this not resemble Nineteen Eighty-Four? We seem to have doublethink, thought crime, newspeak, and memory holes either on the horizon or here already. It is so weird. And "moderate" republicans (non-conservatives) are helping to usher this form of totalitarianism in with their failure to make a stand and defend/ define conservative principles ... ie truth!

There is no slavery but ignorance. Liberty is the child of intelligence.
– Robert G. Ingersoll (1833-1899)

There is little value in ensuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.
– John F. Kennedy

Arroyo_Doble

01-23-2012, 10:42 AM

His income is what he invested. That income was ALREADY TAXED. Get it? He then had the ALREADY TAXED income taxed AGAIN on his gains.

You contradict yourself. You said it was taxed "AGAIN" but then claimed only gains were taxed.

Which is it? Are only the gains (new income) taxed or are both the gains (new income) AND the capital invested taxed?

(Caps used to assist idiot liberal's comprehension handiCAPS)

Thanks. It didn't work though. Might help if you made a consistent argument.

AmPat

01-23-2012, 10:56 AM

You contradict yourself. You said it was taxed "AGAIN" but then claimed only gains were taxed.

Which is it? Are only the gains (new income) taxed or are both the gains (new income) AND the capital invested taxed?

Thanks. It didn't work though. Might help if you made a consistent argument.
No Moonbat, I did not.

THE SAME TAXED INCOME WAS USED TO INVEST.

It wasn't magic money. It wasn't somebody else's money.

It was money ALREADY TAXED.

He then took that ALREADY TAXED MONEY and invested it.

He then paid taxes on the gains that had never been taxed.

Clear now Moonbat?:rolleyes:

Arroyo_Doble

01-23-2012, 11:03 AM

No Moonbat, I did not.

THE SAME TAXED INCOME WAS USED TO INVEST.

It wasn't magic money. It wasn't somebody else's money.

It was money ALREADY TAXED.

He then took that ALREADY TAXED MONEY and invested it.

He then paid taxes on the gains that had never been taxed.

Clear now Moonbat?:rolleyes:

Yes. It is clear. He paid taxes on income. The claim that he paid taxes twice on the same income is a lie.

AmPat

01-23-2012, 11:08 AM

Yes. It is clear. He paid taxes on income. The claim that he paid taxes twice on the same income is a lie.

So you can run and tell the rest of your ilk that Romney paid taxes on ALL INCOME and help educate the Rainmen out there?:cool:

DumbAss Tanker

01-23-2012, 11:55 AM

Yeah, my Dad tried that theory on the IRS, without getting their read on it first over several years, of course. He got caught and ended up having to take out a mortgage on his paid-off house and fork over half his retired pay for two years. The IRS does not buy this particular flavor of voodoo accounting.

Now if you want to talk about what a travesty all the 'Effective tax rate' claptrap is, look at the corporate tax rate...all the Fiscal Conservative talking heads and old boys are always harping about how uncompetitive it is, but at the same time we have Buffet stiffing the Feds for a billion and GE paying no net taxes (Which is an 'Effective tax rate' of zero). The rules apparently aren't such a huge problem for multi-billion dollar enterprises.

fettpett

01-23-2012, 12:01 PM

That makes no sense. Either it is income or it isn't. Calling it capital gains doesn't change whether or not you gained income.

Taxing income should be the same whether it is made through risk or labor.

his initial investment money was taxed as income. Then the money he made on investing that initial money was taxed at the LEGAL rate of 15%

None that I am aware of. It is possible we are talking about two different things. I never stated that Romney doesn't pay taxes. This started with Odie claiming a flat tax is contrary to my belief the current tax code favors wealthy individuals. I just countered that his effective tax rate is lower than mine. Some guys went off on a tangent about his income being taxed twice but that was absurd.

AmPat

01-23-2012, 01:16 PM

so...what's you're problem?

His liberal and illogical ideology didn't survive the facts.:cool:

Odysseus

01-23-2012, 02:13 PM

Romney stated that his effective tax rate is 15%. Mine is higher. How about you?
On my income, probably higher, but on my capital gains, the same. Any income that he derived from salary, pensions, bonuses or other than capital gains got taxed at the rates in the tax code.

Yes. It is clear. He paid taxes on income. The claim that he paid taxes twice on the same income is a lie.
No, he paid taxes on transactions. If he earned a dollar from salary, he paid income taxes on it. If he reinvested that income, he then paid a capital gains tax on any gains made by the investment. If he sold one stock and bought another, he paid a capital gains tax every time he sold the stock. If he derived gains from his investments and reinvested them, he got hit every time he took the money out to reinvest.

BTW, what's your take on taxes on corporations?

txradioguy

01-23-2012, 02:20 PM

his initial investment money was taxed as income. Then the money he made on investing that initial money was taxed at the LEGAL rate of 15%

On my income, probably higher, but on my capital gains, the same. Any income that he derived from salary, pensions, bonuses or other than capital gains got taxed at the rates in the tax code.

No, he paid taxes on transactions. If he earned a dollar from salary, he paid income taxes on it. If he reinvested that income, he then paid a capital gains tax on any gains made by the investment. If he sold one stock and bought another, he paid a capital gains tax every time he sold the stock. If he derived gains from his investments and reinvested them, he got hit every time he took the money out to reinvest.

Right. The tax code favors the wealthy.

BTW, what's your take on taxes on corporations?

I think it should be zero. Unlike some, I don't think they are people.

AmPat

01-23-2012, 02:33 PM

Right. The tax code favors the wealthy.

I think it should be zero. Unlike some, I don't think they are people.

That's just plain stuck on stupid moonbattyism. How is a progressively HIGHER tax as you earn more income "favorable" to the rich. Grow a few more brain cells than the two (inhale-exhale), that you have and respond using that detestable to liberal's tool called logic.

Arroyo_Doble

01-23-2012, 02:37 PM

How is a progressively HIGHER tax as you earn more income "favorable" to the rich.

That's just plain stuck on stupid moonbattyism. How is a progressively HIGHER tax as you earn more income "favorable" to the rich. Grow a few more brain cells than the two (inhale-exhale), that you have and respond using that detestable to liberal's tool called logic.

Annoyo's basic viewpoint on taxes and "the rich" can be summed up by saying:

"he would rather that the poor were poorer, provided that the rich were less rich."

AmPat

01-23-2012, 02:55 PM

When you call income something else.

Questions:
Are the tax codes different for the poor versus the rich?
Do the poor have the same right to invest as the rich?
If the poor do invest, do they fall under the same tax rules as the rich?
Do the rich pay more in taxes than the poor?

Arroyo_Doble

01-23-2012, 03:01 PM

Questions:
Are the tax codes different for the poor versus the rich?

No.

Do the poor have the same right to invest as the rich?

Yes.

If the poor do invest, do they fall under the same tax rules as the rich?

Yes

Do the rich pay more in taxes than the poor?

Yes.

Odysseus

01-23-2012, 05:09 PM

Right. The tax code favors the wealthy.
I don't know how you can say that when the wealthy pay far more, proportionally, in taxes, than the rest. The top 1% of income earners pay over 30% of all income taxes, and the bottom 50% of earners pay less than 5%.

I think it should be zero. Unlike some, I don't think they are people.
You're right, but for the wrong reason. Corporations don't pay taxes, they pass them along to consumers. Thus, a tax on gasoline is not a tax on Exxon, but on Exxon's customers.

Also, the Supreme Court didn't say that corporations are people. What it said is that they have the same rights as people, for the simple reason that a corporation is made up of people, who do not surrender their rights when they pool their efforts.

When you call income something else.

Since Adam Smith first defined the types of income, it has been understood that there are some forms of it that are not income, as we call it, but part of that is that we use income in a different way than he did. Smith identified three kinds of income: wages (payments for labor), rents (payments for favorable positions) and profit (income from investments). We refer to wages and rents as income, and profit as capital gains, but there are critical differences between the three, which necessitate different rates, or at least different ways of calculating rates. For example, a wage is a fairly straightforward calculation. OTOH, a rent may entail expenses that a wage does not, and which must be deducted from the final calculation of income. A profit from investment requires even more calculation, because if you simply apply a fixed rate to all gains from the sale of equities, properties or debt instruments, without taking the amount of time that they were held into account, than you may end up eliminating any gain made, since inflation is a factor. So, it's not that calling income by different names favors the rich, it's that there are different types of income, which must be calculated and taxed differently.

AmPat

01-23-2012, 05:10 PM

No.

Yes.

Yes

Yes.
So by your own admission, the poor and rich have the same playbook, and the rich pay more in taxes. Now i'll ask you again;
How is the tax codes/rules that are the same for all, yet heavily weighted toward taxing the rich, more favorable to the rich?

Retread

01-23-2012, 09:39 PM

Let's start at the Truth-o-meter: "51 percent of American households pay no income tax" (http://http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/08/john-cornyn/john-cornyn-says-51-percent-american-households-pa/) - 100% True
"30 percent of American households actually made money from the tax system by way of refundable tax credits"

A comparison here (http://http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html) is 2009. The difference, of course, is the little o recession.

So.... the taxes continue to fall on a smaller and smaller group at the top of the ladder.

Here (http://http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes) is a 2007 view of what real tax cuts do - "There is no correlation between tax rates and deficits in recent U.S. history"

Arroyo_Doble

01-24-2012, 10:46 AM

We are at an impasse, Odie. My last thoughts on the claim that capital is taxed twice is lifted from my friend Norm: That bite doesn't touch the apple. It's a lick on the caramel that's been put on the apple.

AmPat

01-24-2012, 12:09 PM

We are at an impasse, Odie. My last thoughts on the claim that capital is taxed twice is lifted from my friend Norm: That bite doesn't touch the apple. It's a lick on the caramel that's been put on the apple.

"Impasse?" :confused: You can't even be honest and admit that you are completely wrong. I thought you had more honor than that. Forgive me, I was wrong. (see how one does that?;)).

Arroyo_Doble

01-24-2012, 12:15 PM

"Impasse?" :confused: You can't even be honest and admit that you are completely wrong. I thought you had more honor than that. Forgive me, I was wrong. (see how one does that?;)).

Ha!

Odysseus

01-24-2012, 12:34 PM

We are at an impasse, Odie. My last thoughts on the claim that capital is taxed twice is lifted from my friend Norm: That bite doesn't touch the apple. It's a lick on the caramel that's been put on the apple.

No, actually it isn't. If I earn a salary, and pay taxes on it, then the income that survives that gets put into an investment and earns a dividend, then taxing the dividend without indexing for inflation does bite into the apple.